Bombay HC Says Better To Ignore CPI(M) Than Take Contempt Action

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Monday refused to take action against the Communist Party of India (Marxist) for the alleged contempt of the court. The left party had issued a press release criticising the court for its recent observations while denying permission for a protest against Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The controversy stems from a July 25 hearing, during which a division bench comprising Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad denied CPI(M)’s request to stage the demonstration. In the hearing, the bench strongly suggested that the party should focus on domestic concerns rather than international issues.

“Our country is grappling with numerous problems. Yet your focus is on Gaza and Palestine. This is not patriotism. True patriotism is addressing the issues faced by people in India,” Justice Ghuge had remarked during the proceedings. He further criticized the party’s priorities, saying, “You are all short-sighted. Practice what you preach.”

In response to CPI(M)’s press note condemning the Court’s observations, Senior Advocate S.M. Gorwadkar urged the bench to take suo motu cognizance, calling the note “contemptuous” and warning that it could undermine public confidence in the judiciary. He cited legal precedent to support his view that such public criticism could amount to criminal contempt.

“The law is clear that judicial decisions must not be publicly maligned. This trend, if left unchecked, sends a damaging message to society,” Mr. Gorwadkar argued, also providing copies of the press note to the bench.

However, Justice Ghuge declined to take a suo moto action in the matter, stating, “We would prefer to ignore it. They believe they have the right to criticise so let them exercise it.”

Although Mr. Gorwadkar acknowledged the judges’ restraint, calling it an act of “magnanimity,” he indicated that a formal contempt petition would still be filed following notice to the concerned parties.

Justice Ghuge reiterated the bench’s intention not to pursue the issue further. “Our role is limited. We simply urged them to focus on the problems within our country. If they feel our decision was wrong and wish to condemn it, let them do it. We would prefer to ignore this,” Justice Ghuge said.

The bench also highlighted the increasing tendency of such matters to play out on social media, leading to polarised public reactions. “We did our job, they are doing theirs. Let them,” the judges concluded, firmly refusing to initiate any suo motu contempt proceedings against the CPI(M).